CallaghanFilms
Veteran
Real actors (of whom the camera likes) directed by a solid storyteller with a solid story to tell.
What makes a film look like a film?
- Thread starter mr_goodbomb
- Start date
Finnegan
Well-known member
I don't know about this, it has nothing to do what makes a film LOOK like a film.
ilauzirika
Boring Senior Member
Then you would be a really good actor in a devil role! so from this point of view the camera would love you if you played the role of the Devil.:evil:
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
It does indeed, sir.
1 in 500??
That's lowballin' things a bit, no?
I pin it more at one in 200k
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
If you shoot yourself with your own camera, will you 1) go blind, 2) grow hair on your palms... then go blind???
polfilmblog
Well-known member
You guys will probably want a listen to the director of photography from Terminator Salvation (who I believe was famously reamed out by Christian Bale, hehe) as he discusses getting a 5dmk to look like film:
http://media.fxguide.com/redcentre/redcentre-056.mp3
Second half is where the interview is.
Anyway, he prefers the VDSLRs to just about anything these days. He uses 1/40th or 1/50th shutter. Shoots 30p, and has TWIXTOR convert to 24p, and says that is the best way to get a film look.
He also implied some trickery with the white balancing in order to get the colors correct in camera. That may entail balancing to a bluish white for a more orange look, or vice-versa. On that he was vague.
His main plug for the Canons is that they got skin tones right. The color is what sold him.
http://media.fxguide.com/redcentre/redcentre-056.mp3
Second half is where the interview is.
Anyway, he prefers the VDSLRs to just about anything these days. He uses 1/40th or 1/50th shutter. Shoots 30p, and has TWIXTOR convert to 24p, and says that is the best way to get a film look.
He also implied some trickery with the white balancing in order to get the colors correct in camera. That may entail balancing to a bluish white for a more orange look, or vice-versa. On that he was vague.
His main plug for the Canons is that they got skin tones right. The color is what sold him.
I am not disagreeing, but the camera doesn't like anyone, it is the person that has to "like" the camera.
I totally get your point, but personally I'd say that you can't have one without the other. A "film" isn't its parts so I reject the entire notion of achieving the "film look". A "film" is an experience that goes beyond sights and sounds, it is intrinsically meshed with timing and content.
So, why bother trying to put lipstick on a pig? It is still blatantly obvious that it is a pig, not the love of your life, not even a decent date that got your blood rushing for a moment or two, not a film.
I totally get your point, but personally I'd say that you can't have one without the other. A "film" isn't its parts so I reject the entire notion of achieving the "film look". A "film" is an experience that goes beyond sights and sounds, it is intrinsically meshed with timing and content.
So, why bother trying to put lipstick on a pig? It is still blatantly obvious that it is a pig, not the love of your life, not even a decent date that got your blood rushing for a moment or two, not a film.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
I guess it depends on what the real question is:
"what makes a film LOOK like a film"
OR
"what makes film LOOK like film"
Generally speaking, we have come to accept the term "a film" to mean "a movie" as opposed to shot on film...the same way we refer to movie makers as filmmakers.
If we're talking about "a film" and not just "film" there is no way you can discount the acting and sound. If we're talking about "film" instead of "a film" then I think we're aiming more at the technical aspects of shooting...lighting, framing, etc.
Last edited:
Finnegan
Well-known member
Ok, well you can say that. But you should probably justify why or how you believe the content of a film is directly related to the film's aesthetic. In my opinion as a cinematographer, the look is something that is created in relation to the content AFTER the content is created. Not the other way around. We cinematographers come onto a project when the script is finished, when the story is already put down on paper. Then we choose, in close collaboration with the director, the format on which the film will be shot, the aspect ratio, the color palettes, shots, and lighting designs.
To me, when someone refers to a film's "look" they are referring to specific technical aspects of the film that work together to form an artistic sensibility. That sensibility, in my professional opinion, is separate from the content entirely.
Case in point: Primer. A superbly directed film. Engaging, realistic performances. Subtle dialogue. A great story with a tremendous payoff. But the cinematography is absolutely terrible. There are many, many shots which the color balance is completely off, therefore throwing off skin tones. There are extremely orange tints inside, and blue tints outside. Improper use of filters, poor choice in film stock, and questionable camera movements. There are shots that are overexposed as well as underexposed. This movie, to me and any other cinematographer/cameraman I have ever talked to, does not look like a movie. In fact, the only thing I think they got right as far as the film's look was the aspect ratio. It's filmed in a comfortable 1.85:1 aspect ratio, which is what most feature films are shot in today.
Now, no one cares that the technical aspects are all messed up. Because in the end, what matters in filmmaking is the story. If there's a good story then no one really cares. Sure, we cinematographers tend to nitpick because of our bias, but I love Primer. I think it's a phenomenal film. But I think it could have been much, much better with proper camera movement and lighting. Maybe its because I'm biased, but I don't think that is the case. I do not believe that an actor's performance, or the director's ability to tell the story or direct a performance has any bearing on what the lighting looks like in a movie.
This is a good point, but ultimately not the question that was posed by the OP. The question in the thread title is "what makes a film LOOK like a film?" not "what makes a film, a film?" We all know that a film is not simply one thing or another. What makes a film unique is that it is a collaboration, a synthesis, of all the arts. I believe that more than anyone, hell, look at my website - the quote I have plastered everywhere is "Film is the pinnacle and synthesis of art." But again, that isn't the question here. The question the OP posed SPECIFICALLY asks about the LOOK, therefore, simply the visuals. Not the sound, not the actor's performance, not the story. The visuals.
Last edited:
ChrisHurn
Well-known member
One thing about acting that relates specifically to the look - is I believe that "good" actor, who also looks "right" - will add production value, regardless of the lighting setup, composition, whatever else. There are looks, eyes, people in general that will add production value to your shoot. People who are either ridiculously good looking OR people who aren't conventionally good looking but have interesting - camera friendly - features. (Okay - so that's more about looks than acting, but a lot of it has to do with the way they USE their features).
A lot of short films I've seen use talent that falls between these two categories. They're not models, they're not interesting -- they are just average looking. By the way, even in Hollywood there's a large number of people that people consider "average" - but in truth, they're not average. They've got something that makes them look different from your neighbour (For better or worse). And it makes a difference. Even gorgeous looking people can fall short in this area if they can't make use of their features. It's probably more about using than having.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying put Brad Pitt clones in your films. There are just looks, types of features, people who know how to really hold their face on camera that add values. Really great acting combined with the look of the person.
If acting had nothing to do with it -- then the stills people post of their films would be a fair representation of the movie. But more often than not, once you hit play - it all goes downhill. Making things look like film in motion is a lot harder. But that's truly the key - motion.
If our attention is drawn into the character, if we can see into their eyes, something catches our attention about the way they move around the scene - I think that adds production value that is often only seen in real movies. So our eyes think, oh, this is a real film. (only of course if the other elements are in place -- good compositions, good attention to details, lighting, dynamic looking sets). I don't know how to explain it. There are just people that you know are going to add production values to your film -- they look right for the character. It's not about magazine looks. It's about character. Their eyes. The way they hold their face up and move around. Face expression gives different value to a shot.
Of course it's a combination of what everyone has said -- lights, composition, the experience, production design, or simply -- knowing what looks good and what doesn't. Some people just have a good eye for it, some spend years in film school and shoot on 35mm film and it still doesn't look like a "film". At the end of the day, different people with the same setups create drastically different products.
Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi with 2 cheap 200watt lights, and most of the outdoor stuff was probably with no extra fancy lighting. Aside from the fact that it was shot on 16mm film, he actually knows how to milk his values. He knows what looks good and what doesn't. How to make the most out of the natural light he has - which is more effective than having $$$$$$$$$$ worth of paint and no clue how to paint with a brush. I constantly see threads on this forum about "How many lights do I need" and often, we get all kinds of people say they need huge amounts of light, and all these kits, and that's great - but chances are, that person is asking that question because they have no idea how to paint a scene with just the sun and a reflector, so what's the point of having all that gear?
And that's why his film was great. He told a quirkly, interesting and fun story, that in anybody elses hands with a RED camera and 100k could have (and probably would have) been a disaster. Read the script. That could be terrible if it wasn't in capable, active, interesting hands. With any budget. I can already see the reviews now. I hate to bring up El mariachi again, but to be fair, the case still stands. We've got an advantage these days with all this new technology, there is so much information available online now, books, DVD's, things are becoming very affordable. We need to milk every tiny little thing we own for what it's got.
Two films on DVXuser right now that look like they've nailed it are Drawing with Chalk and Deuce of spades, both shot on the HVX with Letus I believe, but aside from that, I like the look of the cast, I think they look very "real" in terms of the characters. When you see them, you can already feel something just by looking at a still frame. They also look very "filmlike". Not because of the gear, but it looks like a lot of work has gone into ensuring these films come out having told a great story in a convincing way, making most of all the tools available. And good talent, I'm sure the filmmakers will agree. (Both behind and in front of the camera)
Slightly off topic - but I think one great thing about video, and all this stuff we have on offer, is that we have the freedom to experiment with new looks, or varations of what people would call the "film look". Yes, it looks great - 35mm does tend to look awesome when shot, lit, and produced with a lot of money and a talented crew and cast. But what can we do to make things in our favour? For a start we can tell the stories Hollywood is afraid to tell. And we can do it in a way that looks different, too. By making the most of what we've got, creatively.
We all get so sucked up in the system, fancy tripods, dollies, lights, and all of that stuff, that as a result, a lot of films turn out like cheap versions of Hollywood. "Oh that would look kick ass with a bit more money" kind of stuff. Lots of still camera, subtle dolly moves, you know, all the stuff the big shots use in your summer romcoms. I think it's easy to forget that we have an advantage over the system. We can make things wild. Shake things up a bit. The people who do that, and do it WELL - better than everyone, those are the ones that will be in the Hollywood system making changes one shot at a time, tomorrow.
A lot of short films I've seen use talent that falls between these two categories. They're not models, they're not interesting -- they are just average looking. By the way, even in Hollywood there's a large number of people that people consider "average" - but in truth, they're not average. They've got something that makes them look different from your neighbour (For better or worse). And it makes a difference. Even gorgeous looking people can fall short in this area if they can't make use of their features. It's probably more about using than having.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying put Brad Pitt clones in your films. There are just looks, types of features, people who know how to really hold their face on camera that add values. Really great acting combined with the look of the person.
If acting had nothing to do with it -- then the stills people post of their films would be a fair representation of the movie. But more often than not, once you hit play - it all goes downhill. Making things look like film in motion is a lot harder. But that's truly the key - motion.
If our attention is drawn into the character, if we can see into their eyes, something catches our attention about the way they move around the scene - I think that adds production value that is often only seen in real movies. So our eyes think, oh, this is a real film. (only of course if the other elements are in place -- good compositions, good attention to details, lighting, dynamic looking sets). I don't know how to explain it. There are just people that you know are going to add production values to your film -- they look right for the character. It's not about magazine looks. It's about character. Their eyes. The way they hold their face up and move around. Face expression gives different value to a shot.
Of course it's a combination of what everyone has said -- lights, composition, the experience, production design, or simply -- knowing what looks good and what doesn't. Some people just have a good eye for it, some spend years in film school and shoot on 35mm film and it still doesn't look like a "film". At the end of the day, different people with the same setups create drastically different products.
Robert Rodriguez shot El Mariachi with 2 cheap 200watt lights, and most of the outdoor stuff was probably with no extra fancy lighting. Aside from the fact that it was shot on 16mm film, he actually knows how to milk his values. He knows what looks good and what doesn't. How to make the most out of the natural light he has - which is more effective than having $$$$$$$$$$ worth of paint and no clue how to paint with a brush. I constantly see threads on this forum about "How many lights do I need" and often, we get all kinds of people say they need huge amounts of light, and all these kits, and that's great - but chances are, that person is asking that question because they have no idea how to paint a scene with just the sun and a reflector, so what's the point of having all that gear?
And that's why his film was great. He told a quirkly, interesting and fun story, that in anybody elses hands with a RED camera and 100k could have (and probably would have) been a disaster. Read the script. That could be terrible if it wasn't in capable, active, interesting hands. With any budget. I can already see the reviews now. I hate to bring up El mariachi again, but to be fair, the case still stands. We've got an advantage these days with all this new technology, there is so much information available online now, books, DVD's, things are becoming very affordable. We need to milk every tiny little thing we own for what it's got.
Two films on DVXuser right now that look like they've nailed it are Drawing with Chalk and Deuce of spades, both shot on the HVX with Letus I believe, but aside from that, I like the look of the cast, I think they look very "real" in terms of the characters. When you see them, you can already feel something just by looking at a still frame. They also look very "filmlike". Not because of the gear, but it looks like a lot of work has gone into ensuring these films come out having told a great story in a convincing way, making most of all the tools available. And good talent, I'm sure the filmmakers will agree. (Both behind and in front of the camera)
Slightly off topic - but I think one great thing about video, and all this stuff we have on offer, is that we have the freedom to experiment with new looks, or varations of what people would call the "film look". Yes, it looks great - 35mm does tend to look awesome when shot, lit, and produced with a lot of money and a talented crew and cast. But what can we do to make things in our favour? For a start we can tell the stories Hollywood is afraid to tell. And we can do it in a way that looks different, too. By making the most of what we've got, creatively.
We all get so sucked up in the system, fancy tripods, dollies, lights, and all of that stuff, that as a result, a lot of films turn out like cheap versions of Hollywood. "Oh that would look kick ass with a bit more money" kind of stuff. Lots of still camera, subtle dolly moves, you know, all the stuff the big shots use in your summer romcoms. I think it's easy to forget that we have an advantage over the system. We can make things wild. Shake things up a bit. The people who do that, and do it WELL - better than everyone, those are the ones that will be in the Hollywood system making changes one shot at a time, tomorrow.
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I think both have to 'like' each other, in the sense that what the camera does with the person, and how the person views the camera...
Then in addition there's the view, and the viewer must then 'like' what is presented...
While it may not be exactly correct for anthropomorphizing the camera, and attributing 'emotions' to it, some people, no matter how much they 'like' to be filmed... probably shouldn't be... at least for narrative films... unless it's for a specific effect...
But the thrust of the posts regarding 'film look', boil down to almost everything but 'frame rate', or the holy grail of DoF...
To be sure, anything shot on 'film' has by definition a 'film look'... whether it is watchable or not... and whether it is watchable, has little to do with the film stock.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
ditto.
Yes, certain faces look nice in 2D while others don't. I do agree that some faces photograph better than others.
I'd like to put more emphasis on performance than looks though, since appearance is but a small part of a character, an important one for this age's audiences nonetheless (unfortunately).
But the audience is smarter than we even know... give them genuine talent and they won't care about other more shallow aspects.
I'd like to put more emphasis on performance than looks though, since appearance is but a small part of a character, an important one for this age's audiences nonetheless (unfortunately).
But the audience is smarter than we even know... give them genuine talent and they won't care about other more shallow aspects.
Last edited:
Chris Light
Veteran
sole?...must be walking a bit funny now.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
El Director
Veteran
Don't know if this has been mentioned-- I can't read the whole thread right now, so I apologize in advance if it has.
I think if you want your movie to look like film, you need to move the camera. Too many indies like to lock of their shots. Go build a dolly or glidecam. If you don't have the money, stick your little palm sized camcorder on the tripod and pick up the tripod by two legs. You just turned your little camera into a big camera and the different style of motion will show.
I think if you want your movie to look like film, you need to move the camera. Too many indies like to lock of their shots. Go build a dolly or glidecam. If you don't have the money, stick your little palm sized camcorder on the tripod and pick up the tripod by two legs. You just turned your little camera into a big camera and the different style of motion will show.
mr_goodbomb
Active member
While I agree with you, I watched Pulp Fiction last night for the purpose of watching the cuts (knowing how much dialogue there was and wondering how they dealt with it), and was surprised to see so many scenes done almost entirely with the camera locked down, and some with only a few different angles to cut between (the "yard shower" scene, for example, where Vince and Pip get hosed off, lasts for about 3 minutes and only has two shots, both locked down).